My colleague Laura Wright and I were standing in front of an English class arguing about whether Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. We were guest speakers in a course on film and literature. The students had watched the documentary Food, Inc., and their teacher asked us to discuss our perspectives on meat. Laura and I are good friends but we have different perspectives on the consumption of animals. She does not eat them. I do.

The class was fun and the students seemed engaged. Laura showed a video clip of Lisa Simpson's conversion to vegetarianism and I read a section from my book comparing the relative cruelty of cockfights versus Chicken McNugget Happy Meals. Things were going well until Adolf Hitler's name came up.

The Nazi Animal Protection Movement

It was my fault. I used the Nazi animal protection movement to illustrate how a culture can twist human moral values in weird and tragic ways. I first became aware of the extent that Third Reich leaders were concerned with animal suffering when I read an article (here) by Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax.

Remarkably, as soon as the Nazi Party came to power in 1933, they began to enact scores of animal protection laws, some of which are still operative in Germany. (See here for the 1933 legislation.) For example, in Nazi Germany, people who mistreated their pets could be sentenced to two years in jail. The Nazis banned the production of foie gras and docking the ears and tails of dogs without anesthesia, and they severely restricted invasive animal research. The Nazi Party established the first laws insuring that animal used in films were not mistreated and also mandated humane slaughter procedures for food animals and for the euthanasia of terminally ill pets. (The Nazis were particularly concerned with the suffering of lobsters in restaurants). In addition, the German government established nature preserves, a school curriculum for the humane treatment of animals, and they hosted one of the first international conferences on animal protection.

While concern for animal suffering was not universal among the Nazi hierarchy, Arluke and Sax convincingly argue that pro-animal sentiment was widespread. In 1933, Hermann Göring announced he would "commit to concentration camps those who still think they can treat animals as property." The feared Heinrich Himmler once asked his doctor, who was a hunter, "How can you find pleasure, Herr Kerstein, in shooting from behind at poor creatures browsing on the edge of a wood...It is really murder." Sax chronicles many other examples in his fascinating book Animals In the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, And The Holocaust.

Perhaps the most chilling episode in the bizarre annals of Nazi animal protectionism was a 1942 law banning pet-keeping by Jews. As a result, dogs and cats owned by Jews were rounded up and humanely euthanized according to the German regulations pertaining to pets. But unlike their companion animals, Jews themselves were not covered under the humane slaughter legislation.

Was Hitler a Vegetarian? Does It Matter?

Back to my argument with Laura....There is no doubt that Adolf Hitler claimed to be animal lover. In his 1938 autobiography, Mein Kampf, he describes how, when food was scarce, he would share his meager meals with mice. Hitler had a particular fondness for ravens, wolves and dogs. He abhorred hunting and horse-racing and referred to them as "the last remnants of a dead feudal world."

Was he a vegetarian? Arluke and Sax think so. Hitler once told a female companion who ordered sausage while they were on a date, "I didn't think you wanted to devour a dead corpse...the flesh of dead animals. Cadavers!" Hitler claimed that meat-eating was a major factor of the decline of civilization and that vegetarianism could rejuvenate society. His henchman Goebbels wrote in his diary, "The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any series basis. They are totally unanswerable."

Hitler petting a fawn.

The extent of Hitler's vegetarianism, however, is a matter of dispute. Laura, for example, tells me that Hitler occasionally ate sausages. (See Rynn Berry's Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover.) I suspect that she is right and that Hitler was an inconsistent vegetarian. But so are most modern American "vegetarians", 70% of whom sometimes eat meat. (See this PT blog post.) More importantly, she and I agree that whether Adolf Hitler ate no meat, a little meat, or a lot of meat is completely unrelated to the arguments against eating animals. Simply because Hitler was (mostly) vegetarian in his dietary habits does not undermine the case for animal rights.

The Moral Significance of Nazi Animal Protection

There are, however, a few things we can learn from the Nazis' stated concern for animal welfare. The first is that human-animal interactions are fraught with paradox and inconsistency. The existence of a culture in which the leaders obsessed over the suffering of lobsters in Berlin restaurants while they were gassing people in concentration camps with rat poison represents a moral inversion of incomprehensible proportions.

Second, the Nazi animal protectionists represent examples of fundamentally bad people doing good things for animals. I suspect this pattern of behavior is rare. However, the converse -- fundamentally good people who treat animals badly -- is common. In the United States, for instance, over 150 million animals are killed or wounded each year for the enjoyment of recreational hunters. Similarly, most childhood animal cruelty is perpetuated by children who will grow up to be perfectly normal adults. (The widespread belief that most school shooters and serial killers were early animal abusers is a myth.) Then there are the 10 billion animals slaughtered each year in the United States by what the philosopher Tom Regan calls "the tyranny of the fork."

Our Vegan Dinner

There is no tyranny of the fork at Plant, that's the new restaurant in Asheville that Laura's husband Jason Sellers (a vegan chef) and his partners opened a couple of months ago to rave reviews. A

Laura, Jason, and Hal at Plant...

week after our argument about Nazis, my wife and I met Laura there for dinner. It was first my meal at a vegan restaurant. My entrée, peppercorn crusted seitan with truffled cauliflower puree, was fabulous. But the stand-out was desert - a scoop of bacon maple ice cream. (The "bacon" - which tasted like bacon - was actually made of shitake mushrooms, olive oil, and salt). Who knew vegetables could be so good? And there was no talk over dinner about Adolf Hitler, animal lover.

I wish educated people who dredged up this "Hitler was a vegetarian" hoax would do they homework before spouting off.

OK, let's admit it all rather silly and just an excuse to make some other romantic or prosaic point to the chagrin of vegetarians, and pull them down off their moral high horse whilst you do, but let's add some salted facts to meal.

It's widely record that the 'portrayal' of Hitler as a vegetarian was partly PR spin, and the creation of him as a super human spiritual aesthete, and partly a badly managed health regime. "Badly managed" because his chief replaced meat with an indulgence of eggs and we propped up not just by sausages but bull testicle extract. Like most vegetarians of his time and class, the diet would probably not have exclude invisible animal products, e.g. fats and stocks.

Trust me, bull testicles are not vegetarian ... so can we lay this one to rest now?

The Führer was also high on methamphetamine, cocaine and strychnine which could not have helped his judgemental capacities. Why blame the Holocaust on his organic veg and characterise him as a "vegetarian" rather than as a "meth head". Hitler as a meth head is far easier to conceive and understand.

The problem you have in the US is some meat eaters lie about being vegetarian. This is a falsehood that has been put around and gloated upon with glee by their critics and those with interests in their ridicule.

For a professional in the psychological field, you appear to have pants up upside down and lack perspicuity.

Why do some meat eaters feel the need to lie and claim to be vegetarians? Well, that is simpler but strange to deduce. Off the cuff I'd say it is a simple mix of egotism or vanity and emotional immaturity.

Vegetarianism carries some cool or social cache and veganism stands as our moral baseline when it comes to kindness and compassion towards animals. These meat eaters want to appear all that vegetarians are (kindness and compassion etc) but lack the moral strength and fibre to do so. Being immature ... they do what children do when in a tight squeeze and lie. Some of them might even be living in a sort of schizophrenic fantasy of themselves being a vegetarian whilst they deny the other real, unsavoury part of themselves ... and the violence and aggression that goes with it.

Just like pedophiles can go about appearing to be quite safe and normal most of the time, so do these meat eaters go about appearing to be herbivorous.

And, lastly, as for the Nazis being "moral inverse to incomprehensible proportions" ... you know, the sad truth is they were not and they were no different than us today.

We may weep dead kitten and the dolphins the evil Japanese kill but at the same time "our boys" have been slaughtering mothers, children and little old ladies and raping their way across Asia from Okinawa to Palestine ... on a proportionate rate not that different from the Nazi ... we are the Nazi elite of our day and every bit as inconsistent. Perhaps even moreso.

Not all Germans were Nazis and so why should it seem absurd to find compassion and sentiments within their society? Not all individuals were 100% pure "evil Nazi" either ... they remained being human too. Many resisted either within or without the party. Is it such a surprise to vulgar and despotic America, 70 years later, to discover that German society and culture has and had some virtue too?

I am saddened to find such an intelligent man bobbing around amongst such simplistic stereotypes. Please do better.

I hope this was posted--twice, no less--as a joke. But even so, keep it off this site. And all sites! Keep it to yourself, inside, and hopefully one day it will be gone from your psyche and cleansed from your spirit. Everyone is equal. EVERYONE.

However, it is simple true that most people who call themselves vegetarians eat meat -- I did not make this up.

Indeed in a CNN interview, Bill Clinton, was talking about how great he feels now that he isa vegan. And then in the next sentence he mentioned that he eats salmon once a week. I guess he considers fish a vegetable.

Your point that "we are the Nazi elit of our day and every bit as inconsistent" was exactly the point of the blog.

However, it is simple true that most people who call themselves vegetarians eat meat -- I did not make this up.

Indeed in a CNN interview, Bill Clinton, was talking about how great he feels now that he isa vegan. And then in the next sentence he mentioned that he eats salmon once a week. I guess he considers fish a vegetable.

Your point that "we are the Nazi elit of our day and every bit as inconsistent" was exactly the point of the blog.

why do people who chastise people who eat real bacon makes things that 'taste like bacon"? On would think that the very idea of bacon would be taboo. Why Tofurky? ( better known as Tofunky) why does anyone who abhors meat want to eat something that tastes like meat ( sort of) and all of that soy.. lots of estrogen there guys.. you can buy a limp noodle or be one..what do vegans feed their pets? do they approve of killing a cow or pig or chicken just so their dog or cat can eat? (please no "dogs are omnivores etc.. no they are not.. they are carnivores.. test? put down a steak and a bowl of oatmeal.. watch which one your dog eats first.. cats are obligate carnivores and have to have meat to survive.. no matter what "Vegan Vinnie" tells you) so do vegans only have plant eating animals as pets.. or do they join in with Ingrid Newkirk ( Peta animal rights groups)and Wayne Pacelle ( HSUS animal rights group) and eschew, sorry for the pun, pet ownership altogether while sucking up donor dollars to promote "pet protection". Inquiring minds want to know

I can't speak for all vegetarians or vegans, but I can say that I do not like the taste of meat and can't stand Tofurky. I also do not like the smell of meat. It repulses me. I was not always vegetarian with vegan leanings. It is a more recent thing. I am 42 and have been vegetarian for 5 years on December 23. I could tell you the moment I made the choice and why, but it's irrelevant. That said, for those that DO want something that is reminiscent of bacon, it is largely because that's the sort of food they were brought up eating and that's what they know. They don't want to eat the real thing because it makes them sad. That's why I stopped eating meat - I no longer wanted to be a part of that whole thing. So while some vegetarians may enjoy the taste of meat, they don't choose to eat it because they don't want to contribute to the suffering of factory farmed animals and the death of animals.

Regarding dogs and cats, I have 2 dogs, neither of which are vegetarian, nor will they ever be vegetarian. My choice to stop eating meat was MY choice. I am not an obligate carnivore as cats are. As for dogs, they are not obligate carnivores, as you clearly understand - they are opportunistic carnivores. They could survive on vegetarian diets and, allegedly, some do. But it wouldn't be the choice my dogs would make and I respect them enough to not foist my personal beliefs upon them. So they eat a high quality, meat based kibble. We will supplement, on occasion, with whole chicken or beef. Our Ibizan Hound is currently recovering from what we believe is the very bad virus going around and killing dogs in Michigan and Ohio (circovirus? Nobody knows for sure) and she is eating boiled chicken while her digestive system recovers. Do I enjoy cooking it for her? No. But I will do what I have to for her. And because I enjoy the company of my dogs, I will always be "guilty" of purchasing meat products. It's not ideal, but I'm not going to jeopardize their health by feeding them a vegetarian diet when they are clearly designed to eat meat and, given the choice, would happily do so. My dogs enjoy a bite of baked tofu from time to time, but I know that, given the choice between tofu and a nice ribeye, they'd take the ribeye in a hot second. I believe that one can have strong personal feelings about factory farming and eating animals and yet still provide a healthy diet for an obligate or opportunistic carnivore animal such as a cat or dog. I don't feel that the two are necessarily at odds with each other. As I said, my choice to be a vegetarian is mine. I'm not here to convert anyone - canine, feline or human.

The nazi movement considered Jews to be a group, incompatable with a healthy homegrown society. They saw the evidence for that in recent history (WWI, Bolshevik Russia, worldwide economic-financial depression, deterioration of sound basic morals and the successive loss of social cohesion). Their Polish and Ukrainian neighbors had been demonstrating already before that a certain level of antisemitism was not so farfetched an idea as not to emulate.
So, the nazis devised plans to get rid of the Jews somehow. Their goal was to be become known as the Final Solution. We all have been brought up in the narrative that this word meant destruction, annihilation, death. But actually, that is not true. Records show a different point of view. The nazis wanted to get the Jews out of Europe somehow and therefore established contracts with Palestine to promote voluntary immigration, and they thought up a plan to dedicate the island of Madagascar to Jews.
WWII changed everything. The plan now was to move the Jews to the east. Therefore camps were built in Poland, also out of reach of western bombers (they assumed then) and practical as labor camps for industry to support the war effort. Later, when the war would have been settled, the Jews could have been deported further east.
There was never a detailed official plan for a destruction of Jews. The alleged evidence is built out of "convergent" details that are supposed to direct the attention to one point, the alleged Final Solution, meaning the Final Destruction.
It's a myth. There have never ben fuctional gas chambers in Auscheitz-Birkenau or other "death" camps. The contraptions that are being showed to tourists are restored buildings without any logical purpose for man slaughter on an alleged industrial scale. The crematoria have not the slightest capacity to match the demand that would have been required. Aerial photographs do not show any evidence of smoke plumes that would have blackened the skies then. The alleged killings of so many by the Einsatzgruppen within occupied Russia do not match physical evidence, it was solely strung up on some documents with unreliable sources and hearsay statements.
It all doesn't match up. The alleged Holocaust was in fact a nazi struggle in wartime to deport the Jews and to make use of their labor capacity. In the process, many died, which is tragic enough to qualify for Holocaust, if we want to call it like that. But anything else, the intentional destruction, makes no sense. It was Soviet war propaganda. The western Allies picked up on that.

This is not my point of view because I would like to rehabilitate the nazis. I do not want that. But I also do not want to grant others the right to distort history for their gain. The nazis may have had naturalistic ideas and simultaneously wanted to get rid of Jews. This only seems weird when we do not know the actual history and circumstances.
I am not condoning any ethnic cleaning reasoning from whatever crede, so please don't misunderstand my talk here. I just want a sincere historiography that is not being abused for the benefit of certain actors within powerful positions. Wars don't start without reason, and mostly it is not the common folk that wanted thm in the first place.

Allow me to add a few nuances to Mr Herzog's wonderful article:
Hitler was indeed a vegetarian as stated recently by one his official tasters who just published her memoirshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276038/I-Hitlers-food-taster-Margot-Woelk-tells-f...
He was probably a mediocre vegetarian at that, probably binging on cheese and other animal delicacies from time to time, like many vegetarians do, but he was well intentioned.
The nazis weren't really animal lovers. They were posturing, showing off their superior human qualities.
Love of animals, a sentiment that expresses itself in various forms of vegetarianism, animal activism, animal rights, antispecism, veterinary care, or the mere ownership of a pet is a source of pride for most people. It was Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason who said, “Everything of cruelty to animals is a violation of moral duty.” For the Christian church of the 19th century, to love animals as did the saints St. Francis of Assisi and St. Cuthbert was perceived as a way “to establish the pure reign of charity among men,” says French sociologist Éric Baratay. The idea was to eradicate “the taste for blood and cruelty, to improve Man for his brothers and thus to protect humanity itself.” Many influential people such as Temple Grandin believe to this day, as Hitler did, that animals make us more human. And many more people wrongly presume animals to be better judges of human character than humans themselves. As a result, some people want to love and be seen loving animals specifically for the purpose of showing off their human qualities. Celebrities, salesmen, bad boys and girls, and politicians are especially good at using animals, and children, too, for that matter, to boost their public image and to compel prospective donators, fans, clients, or voters to trust them. This is probably why Hitler inserted the episode of the mouse at the beginning of Mein Kampf. What he was really saying through this public show of affection is the following: “trust me, I’m a good person, you see, I love animals”.
The nazis also used animals for recreative reasons, to flee the harsh realities of the human condition. Animals are commonly used to sooth many ills, for all the wrong reasons, and without scientifically proven results.
All in all, the nazis didn't love animals in the true sense of the word for their own sake but for what they could get out of them. In other words they were using them in all kinds of ways for their own benefit. Domestication is the negation of true love and compassion.

Charles -- thanks for the comment and update, and for mentioning the Hitler mouse story. For my money, the best treatment of the Nazi animal protection movement is Boria Sax's book that I cite in the post. Boria is fluent in German so his treatment is based on original sources.